For the past few decades, black holes have been at the center of a paradoxical problem — a problem famed physicist Stephen Hawking now believes he’s solved. Even if you don’t follow astronomy or physics closely, you’re likely familiar with the concept of black holes. Black holes, which are formed by the collapse of super-massive stars, are areas of gravitation so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape. As an object approaches a black hole, it is stretched and compressed beyond recognition, until it passes through the event horizon and… well, we don’t know what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole.

Here’s the problem that Hawking thinks he may have solved. In 1974, Hawking proved that black holes do emit particles, in the form of so-called Hawking radiation. That means that over time — an absolutely fantastic amount of time — black holes evaporate. But if a black hole can evaporate, what happens to the information about the material it once absorbed?

To understand this in the physical world, consider the drought afflicting much of the American southwest. As reservoirs fall, garbage, old vehicles, and even entire towns becomes visible. The “information,” in this case, is disclosed as the reservoir evaporates. Remember, though — a black hole is an area of such intense gravity that nothing can escape, including information about what it previously digested. If the information disappears with the black hole, that violates quantum mechanics. If the information doesn’t escape, that also violates the laws of quantum mechanics. It’s a problem.

Here’s Hawking’s new solution(s). At a conference sponsored by the KTH Royal Institute of Technology this week, he proposed one of two answers. First, it’s possible that the physical material (information) swallowed by the black hole never actually enters it at all. Instead, it’s smashed into the point of no return and encoded as a two-dimensional hologram.

“The information is not stored in the interior of the black hole as one might expect, but in its boundary — the event horizon,” he said. Working with Cambridge Professor Malcolm Perry (who spoke afterward) and Harvard Professor Andrew Stromberg, Hawking formulated the idea that information is stored in the form of what are known as super translations.

“The idea is the super translations are a hologram of the ingoing particles,” Hawking said. “Thus they contain all the information that would otherwise be lost.”

The information stored in these holograms is then emitted in the form of quantum fluctuations, though the data is so scrambled as to be useless for all intents and purposes. To return to our real-world analogy, imagine feeding a car through a crusher, industrial wood chipper, and coffee grinder. Even if you captured every bit of fluid, metal shavings, and tattered upholstery released at every stage of this process, there’s no way to reconstitute two tons of finely-ground Volvo into a vehicle.

The advantage of this theory is that it doesn’t violate quantum mechanics. The disadvantage is that it’s rather boring.

Hawking’s other proposed option is that black holes might serve as gateways into other universes. “The existence of alternative histories with black holes suggests this might be possible,” Hawking said. “The hole would need to be large and if it was rotating it might have a passage to another universe. But you couldn’t come back to our universe.

“So although I’m keen on space flight, I’m not going to try that.”

White holes and alternate universes

One theory is that inside every black hole is another universe — and that the if you could pass through the event horizon of the black hole, you’d be emitted by an object called a white hole on the other side. A white hole is a theoretical structure (none are known to exist, though they don’t violate any of the known laws of physics) that emit matter and energy, but cannot ever be reached from the outside. I’m not going to pretend to understand the physics much past that, except to note that there’s no known way for a white hole to form, no white holes have ever been observed to exist, and white holes don’t form when stars collapse.

According to some theories, a white hole, rather than the Big Bang, might have been responsible for the birth of our own universe. This is, as you might expect, rather difficult to test directly.

The chance that we’ll ever answer the question pro or con is quite low. Not only are we fresh out of black holes in this neck of the woods, the gravitational fields surrounding them would destroy any scientific instrument package we could build. Even if the alternate universe theory is true, what a white hole emits is a blast of energy — not a probe, and certainly not a human being.

Interstellar notwithstanding, direct exploration will have to wait.

Image credit, top: ESO

Tagged In

An interesting video from PBS Space Time on Black Holes (latest one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaEBbFbvcY) if anyone is interested. You’ll note, that light does escape, only that it’s just it’s wavelength is so red-shifted (lengthened) that we can’t observe it (if I’m understanding this correctly – of course, that could be just before it passes the event horizon).

VirtualMark

Yeah it’ll be before it hits the event horizon. After it passes, nothing escapes. At least that’s how I understand it.

Yes and it is most perplexing. For Hawking to come to this conclusion means he has undergone a dramatic paradigm shift in both thought and belief.

He’s a brilliant man but for a while I had begun to place him a rung below the likes of Sagan.

I believe he might be correct on black holes leading to another universe in /rare/ cases–he hits on the spin issue and I think it needs to both be spin but also angular in nature as to tear spacetime apart completely rather than tunnel through it. This would be a terribly complex phenomena for sure and to survive travel through it? Well… that’s something entirely different.

A black hole that holds such a door would be a monster.

I think there are easier and more elegant ways to reach another universe. M-Theory alludes to them.

bob lebart

Extremetech needs to get Hawking to do an AMA here. Could we have fun with that or what?! And the chances of that are about the same as escaping from an event horizon with bottle rockets. ;-)

Talesin

We do know that true science is not based on beliefs, feelings, or agendas whatsoever.
True science deals only in plain, cold, hard fact.

Mr_Blastman

Cold hard facts are data true! But dreams and imagination are the catalysts of discovery!

Albert Einstein once said,

“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

Never, ever discount the power of imagination, beliefs or feelings.

Without our imagination, science–and the scientific method, would never exist.

http://www.brainsnacksdaily.com/ Wait

Theoretical physicists pretty much dream up these stuff and try to prove it by math. Nearly all of the current theories are not based on cold hard facts as we cannot test it with our current technology. These theories are accepted because it works out mathematically with our current models.

True, first they coined Ether, as stuff which permeates space and Einstein had to flank his equations with some vague cosmological constant which he said later was biggest mistake of his life, now Higgs Boson particle discovery suggests that the concept of Ether was right and so Einstein remains vindicated on this

Felix Gill

If the information disappears with the black hole, that violates quantum mechanics. If the information doesn’t escape, that also violates the laws of quantum mechanics.

Theswe two sentances say the exact same thing

Natan

Read again, they don’t

BG

One thing that this doesn’t explain is what happens to the original star that collapsed. Does it remain within the event horizon (and if so, where does it go from there)? Or would the originating star end up either as a hologram or seed matter for the contained universe?

ankush k

This is not a solution..this is just a logical explanation..if else.. I dont think he got it too.. I just feel why would smbody not send a probe with a satellite into the black hole to find out what it is and it feels like to be in a black hole..all answers would be clearly given after that..

Brian

The nearest black holes are thousands of light years away.

Jeff Vahrenkamp

Could be only a light year away depending on size, if it doesn’t have anything to eat or move close by you’d never known it was there… bum bum bum!

John Caudill

Interesting, if black holes are thousands of light years away how do we know they exist? We have no process to interpret a domain billions of miles, let alone billions of years to be knowledgable about this process. Conjecture sure, but absolute, I think Mr Hawkins would find this assumption rather less probable than his theories.

Brian

Really? We can’t interpret billions of miles? Pluto’s orbit around the sun is on the order of a couple billion miles.

John Caudill

Yes, Pluto is 6 tenths of a thousand of a light year from earth. New Hotizons past Pluto in 2015 after being launched in 1984 and took pictures from 2 billion miles away. Think about it, how did we receive pictures one year after our vessel traveled almost nine years getting there? We are missing something, the equations don’t fit.

Gail

Did it get sucked into a black hole and are the pictures it took really what is on the other side? How would we know?

John Caudill

New Horizons travels at 44,000 mph, light year is 186,000 miles per second x 60x60x24x365. Times 200,000,000. That is the distance to the nearest black hole. Your great grandkids’ great x 1 billion kids would not be alive then.

VirtualMark

New Horizons was launched in 1984? Lol, have you ever bothered to read anything at all about this?

Don’t bother to answer that, I already know the answer.

John Caudill

Sorry mistyped, 2006 I believe or 3600 days ago about.

ex2bot

Comments to an article on astrophysics is *not* a place to look for accurate info. There are too many goofballs who have no idea what they’re talking about. Sadly, that doesn’t even give them pause. (That’s not to say that there aren’t extremely knowledgeable people commenting.)

How do we know what stars are made of if they’re so far away? Did you know this question was answered in the early nineteenth century? Who recently observed compelling evidence of a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy?

Look for reputable sources if you’re truly interested.

John Caudill

I agree, most dialogue considering what’s going on light years away, is mostly blather. Over the centuries most assumptions have been disproven. We are on the cusp of populating Mars, so they say, so how do we know the true information about space and its unlimited boundaries. It is strangely difficult to believe there is life somewhere in vast distances we will never conquer. Mr Hawkins with his brilliant mind, is a lot like Einstein and a few other scientists, they fantasize about facts constantly until they have enough believers, then they publish it. Who truly knows what is there and what is merely supposition?

ex2bot

No, that’s not what I mean at all. I mean that there are so many messages like yours where it’s obvious the poster hasn’t made any kind of effort to understand the field of study. That doesn’t stop them, or you, from questioning well-established facts, concepts and practices. The behavior seems so bizarre until one realizes that these people are threatened by the science. Their church leaders are threatened by the science. After all, it’s the job of the church leader and holy scriptures to explain the universe, not these scientists.

Thought experiment: this only works if you agree that the sky absent clouds is blue. The sky is blue. No one would genuinely (key word) deny that fact. But what if your religion pressured you into believing that the sky resembles a red plaid pattern. There is no dissent, by analyzing the holy scriptures your church has determined that the sky is a red plaid pattern.

Now imagine the scientists contradict church leaders. They observe the sky to be blue. The congregation is furious. Children in the church community are quickly corrected when they observe that the sky is blue (they have a bit of the devil in them). A sharp disagreement is perpetuated between the church and the scientists.

You comment on message boards where those outside the church (potential converts) call the sky blue. “No, according to scripture our holy father created the red plaid sky.” Their blasphemous response: “WTF! It’s blue. Look at it!”

Will they ever find the light?
—–

So, yeah. I say WTF! Look at the data!! It’s more complex than the color of the sky, so you have to take some time to learn it. But it’s definitely possible to learn basic conceptual astrophysics without knowing advanced math. After all, if you’re truly secure in your faith it won’t hurt you to actually learn the basic concepts.

John Caudill

Primeval man is somewhere between 200 and 350 million years old. Found in Africa and dated with nuclear dating but a lava eruption in Russia wiped out 80% of all species 200 million years before that. Obviously man was as Darwin suggested, evolved from species not yet understood. Of course the Clergy are concerned, this fairy tale has evolved as well. Learn we must, but it will be to no avail as we are destined to begin anew, time and again. Remember;”Ashes to ashes”.
Perhaps one day, we will understand as the scientist do, but they are way outnumbered by the selfishness of the masses who currently prevail.

Jay

Not a religion nut just someone who has kept as open mind. Sure the sky is blue when looking up at it but from space it is clear. One needs all viewpoints to prove something. As of now and I’m sure in the future we do not have all viewpoints. One does not know and will not know what made that ball of energy interact to create the big bang or what is on the otherside of a blackhole.

ex2bot

The atmosphere (the nitrogen / oxygen / etc. gas layer held by gravity) is still blue and still looks blue from space because oxygen bounces blue light around. Air is blue. That never changes. The paint on your walls stays the same color (assuming same light conditions of course) until it gets dirty enough, wears off, gets damaged, etc.

Here’s a link that explains how one thinker in the early 1800s thought we’d never know what planets or stars were made of because of the incredible distances. BUT THEN a few decades later, someone discovered that we could study their light spectrum to discover what they are made of!

You do it using a relatively simple device called a spectrograph to show a light’s (a star’s light, in this case) spectrum.

Different materials when burned will give off different colors of light.

Why is organized science better at describing the universe (everything) around us? Because they look, guess, test and then write down their work and share it. They also call foul on any b.s. from anyone. They won’t accept anything that can’t be checked. The process isn’t perfect, but it’s by far the best we have. (Called the Scientific Process)

John Caudill

Hmmm, thousands of light years away, huh? How do we know that, most stars we see are already gone by the time their image arrives? At 186,000 miles per second, per second, light is the fastest movement medium, except gravitation that is, inthe universe isn’t it? That’s 60x60x24x365x1,000 isn’t it? The fastest vessel we have in space is the “New Horizon” @ 44, 000 miles per hour. It reached Pluto in 11 years shooting photos from a distance of 2 billion miles. Me thinks we have, like those who planned the shot to Pluto and beyond, visions of Grandeur, similar to our current Pres.

chexwarrior

Because the probe would have to A) Survive the immense gravitational shearing as it crosses the event horizon and B) have some method to transmit it’s measurements out of the black hole, overcoming gravity so intense that even light and radio waves can not escape the event horizon. That and there aren’t any black holes (that we know of) that a probe could reach before the great great … great grandchildren of the people who launched it have come and gone.

bob lebart

Lmao! u got some badass science there bub. Consider a career in fast food.

http://www.willspinden.com Will Spinden

Do we need to do that here? chexwarrior posted a good, useful response to ankush k. Why dissuade someone from learning more about science?

bob lebart

There is a limit to what I can take. Is “ankusk k” a 10 year old kid or an adult with a 70 IQ ? Do you honestly think chexwarrior’s response will do him/her any good? Who is ankusk k to thoughtlessly pontificate on Hawking’s work? You need to scroll up and re-read this person’s post, and then stop trying to be the forum policeman.

http://www.funstufftosee.com/ Dozerman

Barring some form of impossible quantum entanglement communication with the probe, I can’t imagine how we’d get the data back.

some dude

The closest black hole is in center of milky way, having 5+? stars orbited really close to black hole making it really hard to observe let alone to send satellite.

Khaizer

The effects of a supermassive black holes are observable due to its enormous mass bending light and creating gravitational lensing when looking at far away stars or even other galaxies. The supermassive blackholes contained within our own milky way, flings stars (which are lucky to survive ) at the boundary of the event horizon into orbit at 1% LIGHTSPEED!

Matt Menezes

I’m pretty sue the closest black hole is 1600 light years away – not in the center of the milky way.

ex2bot

Edit: In the words of Emily Litella on SNL: Never mind.

Matt Menezes

Well, obviously there’s a supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way, but there are plenty more scattered throughout the galaxy. I think there’s on the order of a hundred million black holes in our galaxy alone, although only like 10 or 20 have actually been observed.

What’s mind boggling is that, given the hundred billion or so galaxies in the visible universe, there’s a black hole being created somewhere every second. That’s just crazy to think about…

ex2bot

Sorry about that, Matt. That was my goof, obviously. I misread your comment. I’ve been taken out and flogged. :)

The scale of it really is mind-boggling.

Matt Menezes

It’s all good, I probably could have worded it better anyway. Regardless, it seems that you and I share a love for what’s out there – the almost incomprehensibly vast universe in all its splendor.

VirtualMark

Lol, how can the satellite communicate to us if radio waves can’t escape?

thugy

The easiest way to investigate a black hole is to create one, not now but in some years from now it may happen

Zunalter

“The disadvantage is that it’s rather boring.”

How is that a disadvantage if it’s true?

Natan

Because we don’t have the power to recreate reality to be more interesting…..yet

Khaizer

Living life makes reality more intesting. There’s always ‘JUST DO IT!”

gogarty

I’d say the white hole theory is correct. Since there would not be a universe inside a universe, no examples of this, short of the origin of our universe can exist. But the continuous absorption of all energy in a region in one universe could be the origin point of another, growing proportionally in size to the elapsed time of the absorption.

ja_1410

Unless you can prove it by experiment, this is pure speculation, not science.

Mike Pengelly

Its called a theory. Many many many parts of physics which are used regularly to improve technology are theories.

Regular Tetragon

Actually that would be a hypothesis. Gravity is a theory. These two constructs of information are entirely different, one being the equivalent of a guess followed by a maybe? Probably? A theory is a hypothesis or collection of hypotheses which is backed by ludicrous amounts of scientific data.

Mike Pengelly

Theory and hypothesis are synonyms of each other. A hypothesis is a theory. Neither are more correct than the other.

ex2bot

In science jargon, a hypothesis is an untested statement based on preliminary observations. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested. That’s not the end of it, though, because the theory will be subject to peer review. Other scientists will attempt to reproduce the experiment(s) that substantiate the theory. This way, poor theories or hoaxes can be discredited. Compelling theories can be refined.

A good theory is a theory that’s backed up by high-quality evidence. The Big Bang Theory, for example, and the theory of evolution, are both theories backed by excellent, verifiable evidence. Both are embraced by the scientific community because of overwhelming evidence.

No theory, no matter how good or obvious, will ever be called “scientific fact” by the scientific community because they don’t do it that way.

(This is my clumsy layman cartoon character’s attempt to explain this.)
[Edit: major typo, second edit to make it a bit more polite. Apologies.]

ex2bot

*Yes, this is important.* There are edge cases: a new theory may be tested but not yet sufficiently; a discredited theory is not backed by valid data.

ja_1410

False. When it is used to improve technology it can be measured and therefore it is physics. Something that you cannot measure or prove is pure speculation.

some dude

False. theory is used a lot to improve/invent technology. Quantum Computer is born based on Quantum Theory.

Just because you can’t predict 1+1 is 2 doesn’t mean that you can’t use it.

ja_1410

You just confirmed what I said. Quantum computer is based on the fact that we have proven using experiments and measurements, that quantum effects are random. Try to build computer on the assumption that black hole leads to another universe. Good luck with that.

some dude

I didn’t confirmed what you say whatever you mean by that. Quantum computer isn’t born because we proven it using experiment. It just mean that we able to provide more instruction other than just positive and negative, something that computer engineer actually never think of, if this theory never show up.

And why black hole theory need to be used in computer. I give you solid evidence now you freak out and give stupid example, nice try.

ja_1410

Then you missed my argument completely. Quantum computer is build on the principle that we measured and proven by experiment. claiming, that there are other universes that we cannot measure or observe in any way is speculation.

ex2bot

If it cannot be proven with cold, hard facts it shouldn’t even be speculated upon, is that it? Is it outside the realm of science, suitable only for fools and charlatans?

Or, perhaps in order to begin to understand the unknown, they have to start from where they are. In my humble understanding, math has predicted plenty of real, observable phenomenon. Maybe someone more capable than I will elucidate.

ja_1410

You don’t call religion a science, do you? And believing that some creator have created the universe is equally speculative.

ex2bot

No. Theoretical physicists develop mathematical models to attempt to explain aspects of the universe. As an example (and I hesitate to argue this because I am not a physicist, just an interested layman), Einstein’s mathematical model predicted relativistic time, muons and lots of other stuff that have actually been observed. The time on the ISS, for example is very slightly running at a different speed relative to time at sea level b/c of the slight difference in gravity. This has been measured IRL! That’s science.

If you’re interested, there is lots of information out there that explains theoretical physics for laypeople, Relativity, the Big Bang (13.8 billion years and counting!), quantum physics, etc. it’s fascinating science. Quantum physics is very, very strange though. Maybe you’re the kind of person that does not believe the mathematical models until he or she has a chance to take them apart, learn and understand them. In that case, all you have to do is just make sure you have sufficient mathematical education to examine the models. They’re freely available on the net.

On the other hand …

Religion has a creation story usually passed down through oral traditions of storytelling. Typically, the creation stories are ancient attempts to understand the universe. The diety is proclaimed to be omnipotent. No detailed attempt to establish the nature of the diety or give physical evidence of his existence. The scriptures are the ultimate authority and not subject to criticism. That’s not science. (Now if a religion wanted to share a mathematical model explaining the existence of an omnipotent diety, that would be interesting. We’d need to get the scientists busy reviewing the model.)

Religions do not typically offer mathematical models to rigorous peer review in a long and difficult process of getting to the truth.

ja_1410

Your view is very naïve. Every mathematical branch is based on the set of unprovable axioms that are assumed as true. As long as they do not logically contradict each other, they create legit mathematical branch regardless if it has any connection to reality or not. Anything based on mathematics is based on set of axioms that are believed to be true without any proof whatsoever. This is exactly the same philosophical approach as religion, just more rigorous about conclusions There are mathematical theories about infinities (see Cator set theory) that are dealing with sizes of infinity. Have no connection to reality whatsoever.

ex2bot

If I visit this comments section too much longer I’m going to start believing you! :) My point about, say Einstein’s math for Relativity is that it predicted what have turned out to be real-life phenomena such as muons, relative time, black holes, etc.

I’d say that’s a good model if it’s borne out in actual observation. The Theory of Relativity is limited, though, in it doesn’t describe the very tiny (quantum physics). The ultimate desire is to have a mathematical theory of everything.

ja_1410

I don’t believe discovery or theory of muons have anything to do with Einstein. The beauty of Einstein physics was, that he was trying to build theory that was describing measurable reality and rejected many mathematically correct but not matching observable phenomenon theories in his thought experiments. In most cases Einstein provided at least theoretical ways of testing his theories and they were tested before being accepted. But even he wasn’t free from preconceived notions. Einstein did not originally believed in the Universe being dynamically unstable and introduced cosmological constant in his equations to prevent instability. The assumption of instability was leading to inevitable conclusion of Universe having start point – creation which is very uncomfortable to most physicists. Hawkins seem to have the same discomfort. Now in our times Hawkins cannot deny observational proofs of Universe being unstable and created so he, like Einstein, is creating impossible to prove axioms that allow to create mathematical branch that “explains” creation. The assumptions of infinite ever lasting multiverse, or assumption that space and time can be created from “quantum fluctuation” of nothingness is exactly that. We have absolutely no indication that there is infinite ever lasting multiverse or that quantum fluctuations can exist outside of space and time. I wonder how would one could prove that fluctuations can exist outside of space-time where “selfevident”.

ex2bot

It’s been a couple decades since I took a conceptual physics class in college so I had to Google it. I typed “muons relativity.” Observation of muons showed relativistic time dilation.

Ah, I see. Not the discovery of muons but their behavior. My mistake.

(Edit: Added last line)

ja_1410

Oh, yes. From that standpoint it is one of many measurable confirmations of the relativity theory. That is exactly my point. Theory is valid because we have so many physical confirmations. Not because it is mathematically correct. Yo ucan develop mathematically coherent theory that has nothing to do with reality. Strings theory is one of those. Recently it requires 13 dimensions or so.

ex2bot

Absolutely.

Irilis

Since there are speculations that our universe looks pretty much like the insides of a black hole (just without a singularity in the center, at least nobody found one yet), may be so-called “white hole” is, in fact, just black hole when viewed from the inside? Event horizon of black hole, when looked at from the inside, does “emit matter and energy” (stuff that falls into black hole), “but cannot ever be reached” (nothing comes back out of black hole) – just like boundaries of our universe (if there are any).

Black holes, supposedly contain vasts amount of energy, collected over billions of years. Perhaps this energy is the making of another star, eventually. Matter, like water, never disapears, just changes prescence. Nothing disappears, Just changes form according to its environment.
John Caudill

ja_1410

False assumption. Universe was created out of nothing ~13 billion years ago violating laws of conservation. Why then assume, that those laws cannot be broken again?

John Caudill

I was not aware that the universe had a time limit. The universe is unlimited, only man sets this time. If the universe is unlimited, so is time. Man created time, the universe did not. But so do IAgree that it will happen again, man is only a ‘blip’ on space and a mere intellect on something beyond our comprehension, we are only students of something beyond our comprehension, perhaps way beyond. It’s s good possibility man may consume itself, before that realization.

ja_1410

Numerous measurements prove that it has a limit about ~13 billion years away. Man did not created time. Time is part of the universe. It is it’s fourth dimension and exist even if man will become extinct.

John Caudill

Pure conjecture, time was created out of the movement of the earth around the sun and its revolution. Some say that we are slowing down, thus global warming. All purely conjecture as is the makeup of black holes and the “light year”. Time is s corrosive event allowing mater to decay/transform its size and material makeup for another use or event. Man dreams of space and distance and has no proof, consequently conjecture is futile but needed for we who need a point to argue. Alas, we are mere mortals who evision life after death, another useless activity. Ask Mt. Hawkins.

Time is purely just a Localized frame of Space-Time, Time is absolutely nothing like we think it is, it does exist in some form but firstly it isn’t linear and secondly there isn’t a universal line of time. Also Time only occurs through causality. Potentially at these intervals all possible outcomes occur in different realities. It’s what I like to believe anyway.

ja_1410

Time is a dimension of the space time continuum. In my opinion it covers entire universe.

ja_1410

BTW, how did you end up in theology discussion here? You are free to believe that life after death does not exist. As long as ISIS will not overrun your country. The you might loose that freedom.

John Caudill

I am glad you are in contact with mr. Einstein, I have never used Theology for any discussion based on reality, only its mythical preposterous ideology. Global warming, black holes, definite times and distances are all created by man, the same man who says that man was “created’! That is the only reference to Theology that I would make. The absurdity of it all is most prominent in the mind of true intellect. The rest loved Jules Verne as a child, I suspect.

ja_1410

Preposterous? Hmm, the opposite to it is that whole universe including it’s laws created itself out of nothing, suddenly for no reason. Interesting non absurd reality. This suppose to be true intellect? Then I must congratulate you on having one.

John Caudill

Created out of nothing? Obviously I need to apologize for offending your sense of “Creationism”. I am not an atheist for I do believe in a power beyond our comprehension. It is difficult for my mind to grasp the ideology being “Created” other than the method most described in medical theories. It must exist or we would not be here discussing imaginary scenarios applauded by Hawkins and Einstein. Distance and time is so bizarre it’s almost a frightening concept. IE; A light year, an impossible distance and time study? Eh what watson?

ja_1410

This is where I have a problem with Hawkins. Einstein also struggled with this when he discovered that universe cannot be stable thanks to his equations and must have had start point. Hawkins is creating mathematical constructs that are logically correct but there is no proof or some suspect that even no way to physically prove it ever that those constructs are describing reality. The problem is that every mathematical theory is based on a set of axioms that are postulated as truths without proof. As long as they do not conflict you can construct the whole mathematical theory that is logically sound even if it does not describe anything close to “reality”. If Hawkins theory cannot be proven by physical measure it becomes a speculation and enters realm of theology.

John Caudill

I agree with Einstein, the Universe is indeed unstable. We observe asteroids and other materials hurtling through space at speeds only a propellant could produce. Speed is only altered by friction or a self contained deviant, so these materials may have traveled from origins out ofour universe. However they started must have had a propellant or an activity that created its movement (it’s a wonder that a black hole did not interrupt its flight.)
Thus supporting Einsteins theory.
Measuring these vast distances in a “timely”) manner is nearly impossible, do to the movement of the universe and surrounding entities leaving us with a sense that “all is well” which pantenly cannot be true, observing the gigantic parcels that hurtle through space these last billion years or so. I agree that the universe is expanding and will continue until they collide with one another, some cotillion light years away. Far fetched? Indeed, but we are far fetched, aren’t we?

ex2bot

Why bother learning? It’s all pointless for we shall all eventually perish. Hedonism is my only field of study. Yeah, baby, yeah!

John Caudill

That’s what everyone thinks, that’s why we will be ignored. Today man, TODAY! That is what the millineous believe and that where research dough comes from. 6 billion people on earth and less than 600,000 know what we know, or care for that matter!

ex2bot

Sir, I’m not sure you’re not having a bit of fun with us with that last observation!

John Caudill

Perhaps, I have always wonderd why novices expound on things that our geniuses have provided us over the years. I, have no illusions about my ability to challenge things that our laureates have expounded on, whether right or wrong or even playing with us with their possible outrageous ideals on time, space or even if there is a power we are not aware of that feeds these possible preposterous ideas that have been challenged by many. Galileo is a perfect example, taught things that he was humiliated for, but time proved him right on many points. We must respect those who choose t put their ass on the line only to be embarrassed later on. Conjecture is our only remedy to plead ignorance but be willing to embarrass ourselves by asking questions, despite our stupidity.

ja_1410

I always have fun. Life is too short to waste time on worry about little things!

ex2bot

Time exists independent of the existence of the Earth and the Sun. You’re right about us slowing down in that the Earth’s rotation is slowing very, very, very slowly due to friction.

Global warming, or global climate change (referring to the same phenomenon) is caused by the buildup of gases in our atmosphere that trap more heat. CO2 is the most significant (also methane). Human activity generates CO2 from burning. Cars, industrial processes (burning) and home heating are some major contributors. The increase in global average temperature is very well documented. Obviously, there’s a human tendency to want to deny bad news, and there’s been a well-coordinated effort to discredit the work of climate scientists. I trust the American Academy of Sciences over a politician on this issue. Look for the most knowledgeable.

Peace.

Bot
Automated message bot

[Edited to be more polite and typo]

John Caudill

Yes, I do understand. But if you read what I said is that SOME think that slowing down is creating some the global issue. Of course I, like you, don’t blirve every thing I hear. The earths population has doubled in the last 30 years, mostly in countries who ignore the print they are leaving. I was in Hong Kong last year (Kowloon) where raw sewage was being pumped into the bay, fish mothers dumped their waste into cans used for bait. In India we watched thousands of people burning dung and bathing in the Ganges. With feces floating buy.
What we do as a country is minuscule to the degradation the third world is heaping upon us. Yes I do read and I have been there. We can do little to effectively change that 2 billion people in China and India completely ignore.

Mr_Blastman

The universe is unlimited? That’s news to me! How Sir, do you know that the universe is unlimited?

I have a sneaking suspicion it is not. It is only as vast as it has had time to expand to.

John Caudill

Unlimited has several meanings. One it is infinity. Two? It is beyond our scope or access. I apologize, having never been to its outer limits my knowledge is limited.

Dignitas ZeNeo

It’s accepted by most scientists that the underlying framework of the Universe already existed at the point of the Big Bang. it’s quite likely that void already existed aswell which other Universes already potentially occupy.. I don’t think there really was a Big Bang personally, I think the Universe as we see it today is the result of the Higgs Field going into a Higher state of energy which allowed atoms to come together but the constituent mass of most particles was already there.

That’s why the Quantum World seems weird, because the Subatomic world is likely dependant on a different type of time that was pre-existent to the big bang.

ja_1410

Accepted by most? Since when science is done by no measurement proof whatsoever purely on the popular vote? By this argument Copernicus was dead wrong.

Khaizer

Maybe a universe at the end of its life span (when all Stars die and become blackholes which then evaporate in trillions of years) use the information collected by the final blackhole to reseed a new universe?

Who’s to say this isn’t Universe #1 or the last.

ja_1410

Maybe. But this is not physics. This is pure speculation. There is no proof one way or the other. Same as religion.

Khaizer

Consider it food for though

John Caudill

Created out of what? Are we addressing “creationism” again? Matter exists, just in different forms, whether gas or atoms, it already exists. Time is our invention, not reality. Reality is beyond our comprehension as Mr Hawkings suggests by admitting his thoughts are “theories” created from an imagination propelled by electrical energy of our sensorineural system, another subject as captivating as black holes, wouldn’t you surmise?

ja_1410

Time is our invention? Really? Do you have physical proof that time does not exist? If time does not exist then four dimensional space time does not exist either and it is all our imagination. Hmm. Seems like organized religions are closer to reality than this. Regarding matter existing in “different” forms only known scientific fact we have is that matter existed for about 14 billion years. There is no proof whatsoever that it existed in a different form before that time. But some believe that we do not die. We just are reincarnated in a different form after death. Equally good science at this point.

John Caudill

Dying is a fascinating subject; stars die, life dies, sound dies and light dies. It is about energy, like why does the earth move? Why is the universe expanding and at what rate does it move? All decided by Man and his imagination. So is reincarnations, an issue that has been around for millions of years, derived by mans fear of death. Again, man and his fantastic imagination. The Bible, The Koran, all a fantastically design of “Doomsday Soothsayers”, but without them we would just be carnivores like the rest of the animals.
Mans imagination, an untapped energy fraut with guilt and ignorance, just waiting to be unleashed before the enlightened burn us to a cinder. So says Isis!

ja_1410

Ah. So this is your proof.

John Caudill

Proof? There is no proof, purely conjecture, a whimsical thought from an ignorance born of youth. Thoughts that few carnivores have, or even care about.

ja_1410

Well, with no proof it is not science but religion.

John Caudill

Religion, Eh? Having been educated in “Religious Beliefs”, which I studied with uncompromised zeal, at it’s juvenile interpretations of events that supposedly occurred thousands of years ago and has been interpreted differently by generations of untold groups, boggles the mind. I read a book written about the beginning of the British Iles. The original idea of Life after death and living Gods.
Religion as in “Religiously mindful” The dictionary does not do this word justice, just as it does not with the word “Science” allowing individuals to banter its usage with the aplomb of the linguistic “Scientist”.
We are such great scientist that we now know there is water on Mars, while we have no idea the strength of magnetism. That’s science for you. Yet we heard from the wealtheist leader in the world visit us last week, the Pope.

ja_1410

That is certainly true about many religions. But the key is that religion is to believe in something without proof whatsoever. Hawking ideas of the origins of the Universe are exactly that.

We do have idea of the strength of magnetism. It is measured in Gauss or Tesla units. However we do not yet know for sure about water on Mars. We have strong indications that what was discovered on images was an effect of flowing liquid and it was most likely water.

Pope is a man probably believing in one of the organized religions and certainly not a scientist. I do not have to care at all what is his position on scientific things. To the contrary, history teaches us that most Popes in the past were dead wrong trying to be an authority on science. So his position on global warming and other scientific subjects might be as valid as Al Gore or Marc Morano.

Regarding this Pope being wealthy, I think it is a lie.

John Caudill

I did not know that about magnetism, I was always told that “mass” creates magnetism the more, the stronger, like the sun and stars circle another object as the center of the universe.
Hitler made a pact with Mussolini to have access to the wealth in the Vatican, but like a black hole, we may never know its contents, purportedly in the “trillions” in artifacts, art and gold antiquitys dating a thousand years old, or more. Who knows? They don’t fill out tax returns.

ja_1410

Certainly Vatican has world class art. Many famous artists has created works of art for the church. Regarding taxes Vatican is a sovereign country. To whom they suppose to fill out tax report? Leftist UN?
Do you have any proof that Vatican funded Nazis with their gold and trillions?

John Caudill

Of course not, according to “Mein Kamf” the Reich went after Romes art work, France’s genius productions, and the artestry of all of they genius of all of Europes talents. The man, a genius himself, although, a maniac, thought of a world dominated by genius. The shallow difference between genius and idiocy,!is truly meager( most intellect comes from those who think beyond normal dialog.! Leaving us, the paupers, in a quandary to their ideas. We, you and I, are left with the chellenge of interpreting their thoughts, A”daunting task indeed.

ja_1410

You lost me here.

ja_1410

I don’t belive he solved it. For years he was actually proposing completely opposite theory that information is lost. He even made a bet on it and lost. Finally he has admitted defeat and accepted theory of Leonard Susskind developed years ago.

hargs sgrah

yeah his pride is on the line, while we/i could care less about his pride

Jose Flores

“there’s no way to reconstitute two tons of finely-ground Volvo into a vehicle.” well not with that attitude

bob lebart

That’s right…Joel Hruska will you STOP with the negative thinking?!!

Mable Sharkfin

“Even if you captured every bit
of fluid, metal shavings, and tattered upholstery released at every
stage of this process, there’s no way to reconstitute two tons of
finely-ground Volvo into a vehicle.”.

Erm, with the rate evolution of 3d printing technology I wouldn’t be so fast to say that!

Lorfa

There doesn’t seem to be anything new here. The holographic stuff is old-school Susskind, and the alternate universe idea is something Hawking presented a while back, but he didn’t provide much to back it up.

RH

Ok smart guy….prove it! ;)

Dignitas ZeNeo

If I understand correctly, within the event Horizon time must stop there, all the energy/matter that’s stored within the Black Hole becoming separated from local space time.

This is just a pure Assumption but surely black holes must have a threshold to the amount of energy/matter that can be stored within them. Maybe within these Black Holes the Higgs field interacts with matter differently as it didn’t exist in the early stages on the universe. If within Black holes time is experienced totally different which I believe does then the Higgs Field will function differently or not exist as it will be in a different energy state.

Many scientists think in the Future the Higgs Boson will undergo Vacuum Decay, well this could happen inside a black hole. These are just my ideas based on absolutely no evidence at all.

Mr_Blastman

That is an interesting thought–time changing the quantum properties. I’m not sure. It could be possible with fermions but bosons… especially the higgs field–which allows matter to directly interact with space-time, I can’t help but think it might possess some form of immunity.

Bob

how has Stephen Hawking not been knighted, he should be a SIR!!!!

John Caudill

He was offered a Knighthood and turned it down. Who knows why.

http://www.funstufftosee.com/ Dozerman

THIS JUST IN: Black Holes Now Considered Only NSA-Safe Encryption Scheme!

Talesin

I’m curious;
Who checks/confirms Mr. Hawking’s work? Is there anyone even capable?

By way of comparison, we are only now confirming some of the theories Albert Einstein postulated almost 100 years ago.

Yash Anand

Could Blackholes be actually causing a pseudo effect of the universe to be ever expanding?? OR could they be the portals to maintain the amount of total energy in the universe at constant..?

DougB

I guess I understand how the Big Bang happened, just another White Hole. Energy and matter passed thru and billions and billions of years later, here we are.

Khaizer

Couldnt it be possible blackholes emit dark energy? As I’m lead to believe, the universe is expanding expontianly as opposed to shrinking (due to the almighty force of gravity) and at this rate forever.

The universe maybe infinite , but like life is bound to die. If energy cannot be created or destroyed in the universe, isn’t it possible blackhole’s reconstitute matter back in to energy to power expansion? (If they emit hawking radiaton, what prevents it’s from emitting other energies)

Antrotskin

If the second of these theories (white source as the other face of black hole) is ever true, after a time everything would reach a stationary state, everything in resonance from one universe to another, in a sort of vibration that could result jn a true total hologram.
So everything rotates around the idea of holograms (e.m. force, at last)

Gail

So, if I understand this in very simplistic terms: Black holes = gateway to a new universe via a one way ticket. No chance of return or peering back. All matter is transformed, no longer recongizable as it was. White hole = what is on the other side once a subject has passed through a black hole. Think of a doorway with one side being black and the other being white. We can see the entrance, the door, the black hole. But we cannot see what the other side is: the white hole. So, if we (our universe) is here today because of a black hole, then there must be a white hole up there somewhere (one white hole) that many forms of matter passed through to make up “our” entire universe (known and unknown). Where is the one white hole? What other matter might still be flowing into our universe via this one white hole?

https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/1663050899/ Amos Picker

I do not accept the new theory.

Any object is one that contains all its characteristics within its being an object of what it is. Information is as subjective medium that is a human tool to frame the object into a class or theory which we invent. Velocity, momentum spin, parity mass, etc. are all ID’s that we people and science have attributed through our studies, observations and measurements, .
These are real properties and I am not here to discount the data, but to assert that

what we call information, is our definition of these characteristics, but these
are the inherent momentary characteristics which ARE unified within the object,
at each moment of time. Thus when we discuss the “stripping of the
information” from the object when sucked into the black hole past the
event horizon, we are missing the elemental aspect of the fact that the
information in fact never existed to begin but within our human external world
of observation and cataloging of data. These so called data characteristics we
so dearly lamenting as being at conflict with the theories, are not but our
fiction, as we define as “information”. This so called Information is a part of the unified characteristic of the object, not a suit of armor that needs to be shed off before ones takes a shower.
Thus when the “characteristics and Data” are absorbed within the BH, these are not identified as such not within the BH or on at data library of holograms, on the Virtual or pseudo event horizon, as these are the all within object that was absorbed in its unity of its mass, its spin etc. When energy escapes via the Hawking radiation, it is not an object that escapes nor the information but the balancing of the energy cycle of the BH as its continues of degrade the energy of absorbed objects. Objects – in their entire unified being including their “data or information”.

Example
– think about dropping a grain of salt, NaCl, into the ocean. The information
related to the speed of motion, its orientation its precast height, the time of
day or night or for the fact if on earth or one of the far away earth like planets,
and try to set the idea that the data for this grain is somewhere imbedded within
the ocean or perhaps in a cloud that hover over the water, and the salt now extracted for our table will reveal the information “lost” for that grain we dropped into the sea. That grain of salt was complete, with its information, history and all its energy data within it and is now within the ocean. Is there a hologram or library or data bank to store this lost data?

John Caudill

Could not have said it better myself.
By the way, BH’s have no sides, they are a nucleus themselves, forces that compress. Matter and gasses equally from a 360 degree circumfrance.

John Caudill

In addition, think of infinity, where all matter has magnetism. Particles hurtling through space, propelled by one another’s gravitational energy. Collecting as they succumb to one another’s tug. Creating friction at their impact, igniting a star in some cases but in others, a planetary object. Instead of a Big Bang, a series of little bangs, from stars collapsing creating s new energy to again, propel another series of propelled particles. An endless cycle that over the time we assume, creates life giving environments, only to destroy them once again, allowing new life, in various forms, to again make the futile attempt of everlasting life. Simple, assimilation and far better than Eistein or Hawking’s hollograms parallelograms, etc. etc.

What exactly would be in the atmosphere that could be absorbed into a black hole? Surrounding planets? Gases?

Jan Diabelez Arent Harries

i know whats going on, and im going to send the letter to Hawking. i just was unlucky to call his office when his secretary wasnt there, which she should have been

Gabor

Are he talking about eyesight on cosmic level ? How we see the world around us how we create an image in our brain , as an information ?

Гусейн Гурбанов Азербайджан

Logically complete cosmological concept. /due to lack of knowledge of the English language was not able to correct the translation Implemented by Google/

In order to present the unlimited space originally:

1. homogeneous – enough to postulate the presence in it of two elements with Simple and Complex /closed systematically/

2. heterogeneous – enough to postulate the presence in it of one more element – the Most High and Almighty God – with open systematically.

It is easy to assume that even at the lowest possible deployment of the intangible component of the essence of God – the Spirit of God – for the level of the original downwardly directed the permanent deployment of the material component of the essence of God, there is a curtailment of Simple and Complex /i.e.. It is their decay due to blocking of origin upwardly directed constantly deploy intangible components of the entity / as much as possible heterogeneous to God’s essence minimum possible number of cell uniformity (1H), and God on the basis of the material components of the 1H deploys the minimum possible heterogeneous to its essence as possible numerically elemental homogeneity (2H). Coagulation process will begin in 2H known God start time since the completion of its deployment. curtailment of the Spirit of God to the level of initial deployment again unfolds 1H – God potential for transformation 1H into 2H and 1H into 2H limitless!

Zis Nawabi

Very interesting. But I wonder if they have though that black holes might be a kind of very unknown hot fire that has a black color .

Philo Den

With the discovery of the existence of many Black Holes throughout the universe is not the balance of the equilibrium of matter versus energy changing? These Black Holes are constantly churning and compressing stellar matter and emitting radiation.Therefore stellar matter is being converted to radiation energy on a constant basis.Are we changing from a universe filled with matter to a universe filled with energy?

Brian Greenberg

I have my theory set in stone, i do not have an equation to back it up but then again all the physisits of the world are all idiots, theories are not facts

Brian Greenberg

Everyone is right about the Blackhole except me, i have a huge theory but cannot post it without it being stolen

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2016 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.